Eruvin 14
גְּמָ׳ טֶפַח, טֶפַח וּמֶחֱצָה בָּעֵי!
GEMARA: The Gemara questions the statement in the mishna with regard to the minimum width of the cross beam: A handbreadth? A handbreadth and a half is required, as a small brick is a handbreadth and a half wide.
כֵּיוָן דְּרָחָב לְקַבֵּל טֶפַח, אִידַּךְ חֲצִי טֶפַח מְלַבֵּין לֵיהּ בְּטִינָא מַשֶּׁהוּ מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּמַשֶּׁהוּ מֵהַאי גִּיסָא, וְקָיְימָא.
The Gemara answers: Since the cross beam is wide enough to receive and hold a handbreadth, one can affix the remaining half handbreadth with plaster, a small amount on this side and a small amount on that side, and the brick will stand in place.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: קוֹרָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ — צְרִיכָה שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּרִיאָה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אָרִיחַ, וּמַעֲמִידֵי קוֹרָה — אֵינָן צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בְּרִיאִין כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל קוֹרָה וְאָרִיחַ. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בְּרִיאִין כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל קוֹרָה וְאָרִיחַ.
Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The cross beam of which the Sages spoke must be sturdy enough to receive and hold a small brick; however, the supports of the cross beam need not be sturdy enough to receive and hold a cross beam and a small brick. Criteria were established for the cross beam itself, which renders the alleyway fit for one to carry within it; criteria were not established for its supports. Rav Ḥisda disagreed and said: Both this, the beam, and that, its supports, must be sturdy enough to hold a cross beam and a small brick.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הִנִּיחַ קוֹרָה עַל גַּבֵּי מָבוֹי, וּפָרַס עָלֶיהָ מַחְצֶלֶת וְהִגְבִּיהַּ מִן הַקַּרְקַע שְׁלֹשָׁה — קוֹרָה אֵין כָּאן מְחִיצָה אֵין כָּאן. קוֹרָה אֵין כָּאן — דְּהָא מִיכַּסְּיָא. מְחִיצָה אֵין כָּאן — דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ מְחִיצָה שֶׁהַגְּדָיִים בּוֹקְעִין בָּהּ.
Rav Sheshet said: If one placed a cross beam over the entrance of an alleyway, and draped a mat over it, and raised the lower end of the mat three handbreadths from the ground, there is neither a cross beam here, nor is there a partition here to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it. There is neither a cross beam here, as it is obscured and therefore inconspicuous. Nor is there a partition here, as it is a partition that is more than three handbreadths off the ground through which goats can pass, and therefore it does not have the legal status of a partition.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קוֹרָה הַיּוֹצְאָה מִכּוֹתֶל זֶה וְאֵינָהּ נוֹגַעַת בְּכוֹתֶל זֶה, וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי קוֹרוֹת אַחַת יוֹצְאָה מִכּוֹתֶל זֶה וְאַחַת יוֹצְאָה מִכּוֹתֶל זֶה וְאֵינָן נוֹגְעוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ, פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת. שְׁלֹשָׁה — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת.
Our Sages taught in the Tosefta: If a cross beam projects from this wall of an alleyway but does not touch that wall opposite, and similarly, if there are two cross beams, one projecting from this wall and one projecting from that wall opposite, and they do not touch one another, if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between the beam and the wall, or between the two beams respectively, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, as they are considered joined based on the principle of lavud. However, if there is a gap of three handbreadths, one must bring another cross beam.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת, אַרְבַּע — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the gap is less than four handbreadths, one need not bring another cross beam. However, if it is four handbreadths, he must bring another cross beam, as in his opinion the principle of lavud applies to a gap up to four handbreadths wide.
וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי קוֹרוֹת הַמַּתְאִימוֹת, לֹא בְּזוֹ כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אָרִיחַ וְלֹא בָּזוֹ כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אָרִיחַ, אִם מְקַבְּלוֹת אָרִיחַ לְרׇחְבּוֹ טֶפַח — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת, וְאִם לָאו — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת.
And similarly, if two matching, extremely narrow cross beams are placed alongside each other, even though there is not sufficient width in this beam to receive a small brick, and there is not sufficient width in that beam, if the two beams together can receive a small brick along its handbreadth width, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it; but if not, one is required to bring another cross beam.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אִם מְקַבֶּלֶת אָרִיחַ לְאׇרְכּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת, וְאִם לָאו — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the two cross beams can receive a small brick along its length, which is three handbreadths, one need not bring another cross beam, but if not, one must bring another cross beam.
הָיוּ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְאַחַת לְמַטָּה, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנָה כְּאִילּוּ הִיא לְמַטָּה, וְאֶת הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה כְּאִילּוּ הִיא לְמַעְלָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא עֶלְיוֹנָה לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה וְתַחְתּוֹנָה לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה.
If these two narrow cross beams are placed one above and one below, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One considers the upper one as though it were below, and the lower one as though it were above, i.e., close together. If the two together are fit to hold a small brick, they render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, although they are not actually close to each other, provided that the upper cross beam is not above twenty cubits and the lower one is not below ten handbreadths, between which a cross beam renders an alleyway fit for one to carry within it.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לַהּ כַּאֲבוּהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא. סָבַר לַהּ כַּאֲבוּהּ בַּחֲדָא — דְּאִית לֵיהּ רוֹאִין.
Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father with regard to one matter, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one matter. He holds in accordance with the opinion of his father in one matter, as he is of the opinion that the principle: One considers, applies. Just as Rabbi Yehuda stated in the mishna that the cross beam is considered as though it were sturdy even though it is not, his son, Rabbi Yosei, holds that one considers two cross beams placed apart as though they were adjacent.
וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא — דְּאִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: בְּתוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים אִין, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים לָא.
And Rabbi Yosei disagrees with his father’s opinion with regard to one matter. While Rabbi Yehuda holds that a cross beam renders an alleyway fit for one to carry within it even if it is higher than twenty cubits, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Within twenty cubits, yes, it renders the alleyway fit for one to carry within it; above twenty, it does not.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רְחָבָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּרִיאָה. מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: רְחָבָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּרִיאָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְנְיֵיהּ, רְחָבָה וּבְרִיאָה.
It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It suffices if the cross beam is wide enough to hold a small brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it. Rav Yehuda taught this clause of the mishna to Ḥiyya bar Rav in the presence of Rav: It suffices if the cross beam is wide enough to hold a small brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it. Rav said to him: Teach it to him as follows: Wide enough and sturdy enough to hold a small brick.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַאי אָמַר רַב: רְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּרִיאָה! רְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara challenges this statement: Didn’t Rabbi Elai say that Rav said: A cross beam that is four handbreadths wide renders an alleyway fit for one to carry within it even if it is not sturdy enough to hold a small brick? The Gemara answers: A cross beam that is four handbreadths wide is different, as a beam of that width is considered a roof and not a beam. It is considered as though the edge of the roof descended and constituted an actual partition, not merely a conspicuous distinction.
הָיְתָה שֶׁל קַשׁ כּוּ׳. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאָמְרִינַן רוֹאִין — הַיְינוּ הָךְ!
It was stated in the mishna: Even if the cross beam is made of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were made of metal. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? If it is teaching that we say one considers the cross beam as though it were fit to bear a brick, then this clause is the same as the previous clause in the mishna: Wide enough even though it is not sturdy enough.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בְּמִינָהּ אָמְרִינַן, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָהּ — לָא אָמְרִינַן. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: There is a novel point here, lest you say that with regard to a cross beam made of material that other beams of its own kind are sturdy, e.g., wood, we say that even the flimsiest of cross beams is considered sturdy. However, with regard to a cross beam made of material that only beams not of its own kind are sturdy, e.g., straw, which can never support a brick, we do not say that one considers the cross beam as if it were made of metal. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that there is no difference between the cases.
עֲקוּמָּה רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא פְּשׁוּטָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הִיא בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּבוֹי וְעַקְמוּמִיתָהּ חוּץ לַמָּבוֹי, הִיא בְּתוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים וְעַקְמוּמִיתָהּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים, הִיא לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה וְעַקְמוּמִיתָהּ לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה, רוֹאִין כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ יִנָּטֵל עַקְמוּמִיתָהּ וְאֵין בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה שְׁלֹשָׁה — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת, וְאִם לָאו — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת.
It was taught in the mishna: If the cross beam is curved, one considers it as though it were straight. The Gemara challenges: That is obvious. The Gemara answers that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: If the cross beam is inside the alleyway, and its curved section is outside the alleyway; or it is within twenty cubits of the ground, and its curved section is above twenty cubits; or it is above ten handbreadths, and its curved section is below ten handbreadths, meaning that the curved part of the beam is outside the area where a cross beam is effective, one considers the situation: In any case where, were the curved section outside the area where a cross beam is effective removed, there would not be a gap of three handbreadths between this effective part of the cross beam and that effective part of the cross beam, one need not bring another cross beam. And if not, if the gap would be greater, he must bring another cross beam.
הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! הִיא בְּתוֹךְ מָבוֹי וְעַקְמוּמִיתָהּ חוּץ לַמָּבוֹי אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאִמְּשׁוֹכֵי בָּתְרַהּ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara comments: That too is obvious, as the curved portion of the cross beam is considered as though it were straight. The Gemara explains: In a case where the cross beam is inside the alleyway and its curved portion is outside the alleyway, it was necessary for him to teach the halakha. Lest you say: Let us be concerned that he will come to be drawn after it and carry in the area where the curvature extends beyond the alleyway, Rabbi Zeira teaches us that this is not a concern.
עֲגוּלָּה רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא מְרוּבַּעַת. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּהֶיקֵּפוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים יֵשׁ בּוֹ רֹחַב טֶפַח.
The mishna continues: If the cross beam is round, one considers it as though it were square. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this clause as well? Similar cases were already taught in the mishna. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the last clause of this section, i.e., the principle that any circle with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in diameter.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַיָּם מוּצָק עֶשֶׂר בָּאַמָּה מִשְּׂפָתוֹ עַד שְׂפָתוֹ עָגֹל סָבִיב וְחָמֵשׁ בָּאַמָּה קוֹמָתוֹ וְקָו שְׁלֹשִׁים בָּאַמָּה יָסוֹב אוֹתוֹ סָבִיב״.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, this ratio between circumference and diameter, derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse said with regard to King Solomon: “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: It was round all about, and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did circle it round about” (I Kings 7:23).
וְהָא אִיכָּא שְׂפָתוֹ?!
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there its brim that must be taken into account? The diameter of the sea was measured from the inside, and if its circumference was measured from the outside, this ratio is no longer accurate.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׂפָתוֹ שְׂפַת פֶּרַח שׁוֹשָׁן כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעׇבְיוֹ טֶפַח וּשְׂפָתוֹ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוֹס פֶּרַח שׁוֹשָׁן אַלְפַּיִם בַּת יָכִיל״.
Rav Pappa said: With regard to its brim, it is written that the brim is as the petals of a lily, as stated in the verse: “And it was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was wrought as the brim of a cup, as the petals of a lily; it contained two thousand bat” (I Kings 7:26). The brim was very thin.
וְהָאִיכָּא מַשֶּׁהוּ! כִּי קָא חָשֵׁיב — מִגַּוַּאי קָא חָשֵׁיב.
The Gemara asks: But nevertheless, isn’t there the minimal amount of the thickness of the brim? The Gemara answers: When one calculates the circumference, he calculates from the inside.
תַּנְיָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא: יָם שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה הָיָה מַחֲזִיק מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים מִקְוֵה טׇהֳרָה. מִכְּדִי, מִקְוֶה כַּמָּה הָוֵי — אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה, כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְרָחַץ אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ
Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in a baraita: The sea that Solomon fashioned contained a volume of one hundred and fifty baths of ritual purification. The Gemara asks: After all, with regard to a ritual bath, how much is its volume? It is forty se’a, as it was taught in a baraita: And he shall bathe his flesh
בְּמַיִם״ — בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה. ״כׇּל בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — מַיִם שֶׁכׇּל גּוּפוֹ עוֹלֶה בָּהֶן, וְכַמָּה הֵן? אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה בְּרוּם שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת. וְשִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים, מֵי מִקְוֶה אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה.
in water; specifically in the water of a ritual bath. The expression “all his flesh” (Leviticus 15:16) teaches that one must immerse in water that his whole body can enter at once. And how much is that? A cubit by a cubit by the height of three cubits. And the Sages calculated that the volume of water necessary for a ritual bath of this size is forty se’a.
כַּמָּה הָווּ לְהוּ? חֲמֵשׁ מְאָה גַּרְמִידֵי, לִתְלָת מְאָה — מְאָה, לְמֵאָה וְחַמְשִׁין — חַמְשִׁין. בְּאַרְבַּע מְאָה וְחַמְשִׁין סַגִּיא!
The Gemara now calculates how many ritual baths should have been contained in Solomon’s Sea. The volume of the sea was five hundred cubic cubits, as it was ten cubits in length, ten cubits in width, and five cubits in height. The minimum volume of a ritual bath is three cubic cubits. Therefore, three hundred cubic cubits is the volume of a hundred ritual baths, and one hundred and fifty cubic cubits is the volume of another fifty ritual baths. Consequently, four hundred and fifty cubic cubits are enough to contain a hundred and fifty ritual baths; but the volume of the sea was five hundred.
הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּרִיבּוּעָא — יָם שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה עָגוֹל הָיָה.
The Gemara answers that there is an error in the calculation: These calculations with regard to the volume of the sea would apply to a square, but the sea fashioned by Solomon was round, and its volume was therefore smaller.
מִכְּדֵי, כַּמָּה מְרוּבָּע יָתֵר עַל הֶעָגוֹל? רְבִיעַ. לְאַרְבַּע מְאָה — מְאָה, לְמֵאָה — עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה. הָנֵי מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה הָווּ לְהוּ!
The Gemara continues to ask: Now, how much larger is a square of ten-by-ten cubits than a circle with a diameter of ten cubits? A quarter. Consequently, four hundred cubic cubits of our original calculation must be reduced to three hundred, which is the volume of one hundred ritual baths; and the remaining hundred cubits must be reduced to seventy-five, which is the volume of twenty-five ritual baths. According to this calculation, Solomon’s Sea was the size of only one hundred and twenty-five ritual baths, not one hundred and fifty as stated above.
תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: יָם שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה, שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת תַּחְתּוֹנוֹת מְרוּבָּעוֹת, וּשְׁתַּיִם עֶלְיוֹנוֹת עֲגוּלּוֹת.
In answer to this question, Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught as follows: In the sea that Solomon fashioned, the three lower cubits were square and the upper two were round. Consequently, the three lower cubits of the sea contained the volume of a hundred ritual baths, and its upper two cubits contained the volume of fifty ritual baths, for a total of one hundred and fifty ritual baths.
נְהִי דְּאִיפְּכָא לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ — דִּ״שְׂפָתוֹ עָגוֹל״ כְּתִיב, אֶלָּא אֵימָא חֲדָא!
The Gemara comments: Although you cannot say the opposite, that the bottom of the sea was round, as it is written in the verse that its brim was round; you can, however, say that only one cubit on top was round.
לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אַלְפַּיִם בַּת יָכִיל״. ״בַּת״ כַּמָּה הָוְיָא — שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״מַעְשַׂר הַבַּת מִן הַכּוֹר״, דְּהָוֵה לְהוּ שִׁיתָּא אַלְפֵי גְּרִיוֵי.
The Gemara rejects this possibility: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written with regard to the sea: “And it was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the petals of a lily; it contained two thousand bat” (i Kings 7:26). How much is the measure of a bat? Three se’a, as the verse states: “Concerning the ordinance of oil, the bat of oil, you shall offer the tenth part of a bat out of the kor, which is a ḥomer of ten bat, for ten bat are a ḥomer” (Ezekiel 45:14). This proves that the bat is a tenth of a kor, or three se’a, as a kor is thirty se’a. Consequently, the sea, which contained two thousand bat, contained six thousand se’a, the volume of exactly one hundred and fifty ritual baths.
וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״מַחֲזִיק בַּתִּים שְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים״? הָהוּא לְגוּדְשָׁא.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written elsewhere with regard to Solomon’s Sea: “It received and held three thousand bat” (ii Chronicles 4:5)? The Gemara answers: That is referring to the heaped measure of dry goods that the sea could hold, as dry goods can be heaped above the brim.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַאי גּוּדְשָׁה, תִּלְתָּא הָוֵי. וּתְנַן נָמֵי: שִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל, כַּוֶּורֶת הַקַּשׁ וְכַוֶּורֶת הַקָּנִים, וּבוֹר סְפִינָה אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִית, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן שׁוּלַיִם וְהֵן מַחֲזִיקוֹת אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה בַּלַּח, שֶׁהֵן כּוֹרַיִים בַּיָּבֵשׁ — טְהוֹרִין.
Abaye said: Learn from it that the surplus of dry goods in a vessel relative to liquids is one-third of the contents of the vessel. We also learned the same thing in the following mishna: A carriage, a box, and a cupboard, a round straw barrel, and a round barrel made of reeds, and the cistern of an Alexandrian ship, which is a large vessel placed on a boat and filled with potable water, although these vessels have bottoms, i.e., they are receptacles, since they have a capacity of forty se’a of liquid, which is the equivalent of two kor of dry goods, they are ritually pure. Even if they come into contact with a source of ritual impurity, they do not become impure. Beyond a certain size, containers are no longer considered vessels and, consequently, cannot become ritually impure. This mishna states clearly that a vessel that holds forty se’a of liquids can hold two kor, or sixty se’a, of dry goods.
מַתְנִי׳ לְחָיַיִן שֶׁאָמְרוּ — גּוֹבְהָן עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְרׇחְבָּן וְעוֹבְיָין כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: רׇחְבָּן שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים.
MISHNA: The side posts the Sages spoke of with regard to rendering an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, their height must be at least ten handbreadths, and their width and thickness may be any amount. Rabbi Yosei says: Their width must be at least three handbreadths.
גְּמָ׳ לְחָיַיִן שֶׁאָמְרוּ כּוּ׳. לֵימָא תְּנַן סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר לְחָיַיִן בָּעִינַן?
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: The side posts the Sages spoke of, etc. The Gemara asks: Shall we say the mishna taught an unattributed ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that in order to permit carrying in an alleyway, we require two side posts?
לָא, מַאי לְחָיַיִן — לְחָיַיִן דְּעָלְמָא. אִי הָכִי, קוֹרָה נָמֵי — נִיתְנֵי קוֹרוֹת, וּמַאי קוֹרוֹת: קוֹרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא!
The Gemara responds: No; what is meant by the plural term side posts? Side posts in general, and not those required by a single alleyway. The Gemara asks: If so, let the previous mishna also teach the halakha of a cross beam with the plural term cross beams, and we would say: What is meant by the plural term cross beams? Cross beams in general.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: אוֹתָן לְחָיַיִן שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בָּהֶן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים — גּוֹבְהָן עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְרוֹחְבָּן וְעוֹבְיָין כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. וְכַמָּה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֲפִילּוּ כְּחוּט הַסַּרְבָּל.
The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: Those side posts that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed about, of which Rabbi Eliezer required two and the Sages sufficed with one, their height must be at least ten handbreadths, and their width and thickness may be any amount. The Gemara asks: And how much is any amount? Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Even as small as the string used to tie a coat.
תָּנָא עָשָׂה לֶחִי לַחֲצִי מָבוֹי אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא חֲצִי מָבוֹי. פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲצִי מָבוֹי. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאִישְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּכוּלֵּיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
It was taught in a Tosefta: With regard to one who erected a side post for half an alleyway, i.e., he put it up halfway down the alleyway rather than at its entrance, he has the right to carry only in the inner half of the alleyway, but not in the outer half. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; what novel element was introduced here? Rather, say: He may carry in the inner half of the alleyway even though there is no side post at the entrance to the alleyway. The Gemara asks: That too is obvious. The Gemara explains that nonetheless there is a novelty here: Lest you say that we should be concerned that if it is permitted to carry in the inner half one might come to use the entire alleyway, the Tosefta teaches that carrying in the inner half is permitted.
אָמַר רָבָא: עָשָׂה לֶחִי לְמָבוֹי וְהִגְבִּיהוֹ מִן הַקַּרְקַע שְׁלֹשָׁה, אוֹ שֶׁהִפְלִיגוֹ מִן הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁלֹשָׁה — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּאָמַר אָמְרִינַן לָבוּד — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל לְמַטָּה, כֵּיוָן דְּהָוְיָא מְחִיצָה שֶׁהַגְּדָיִין בּוֹקְעִין בָּהּ — לָא קָאָמַר.
Rava said: With regard to one who erected a side post in an alleyway and raised it three handbreadths from the ground, or distanced it three handbreadths from the wall, he has not done anything, as it is not a valid side post. Even according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: We say that objects separated by a gap of up to four handbreadths are considered connected, that applies only above, e.g., to a cross beam that does not reach the wall of the alleyway; but below, since it is a partition through which goats can pass, as a goat can pass through an opening three handbreadths high, even he did not say that they are considered connected.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר רׇחְבָּן שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא בְּהֵילְמֵי וְלֹא בִּלְחָיַיִן.
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: The width of the side posts must be at least three handbreadths. Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, not with regard to preparing salt brine [hilmei] on Shabbat, and not with regard to side posts.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא: בְּהֵילְמֵי אֲמַרְתְּ לַן, בִּלְחָיַיִן לָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן? מַאי שְׁנָא בְּהֵילְמֵי — דִּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ, לְחָיַיִן נָמֵי — פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי לְחָיַיִן, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאֵי רַבִּי כְּווֹתֵיהּ.
Rav Huna bar Ḥinana said to him: With regard to brine you told us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, but with regard to side posts you did not tell us this; perhaps you have forgotten that the halakha is in accordance with his view in that case. Rav Yosef asked: What is different about brine, with regard to which the Sages disagree with Rabbi Yosei? In the case of side posts also the Sages disagree with him, and therefore the halakha should not be in accordance with his view in either case. Rav Huna bar Ḥinana said to him: Side posts are different, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and therefore the halakha may be decided in accordance with their jointly held position.
רַב רְחוּמִי מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל [בַּר שִׁילַת] מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא בְּהֵילְמֵי וְלֹא בִּלְחָיַיִן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַרְתְּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא. אָמַר רָבָא: הָאֱלֹהִים! אַמְרַהּ, וּגְמִירְנָא לַהּ מִינֵּיהּ. וּמַאי טַעְמָא קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי נִימּוּקוֹ עִמּוֹ.
The Gemara reports that Rav Raḥumei taught this version of the previous discussion: Rav Yehuda, the son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, not with regard to brine and not with regard to side posts. At some later point, someone said to him: Did you really say this? He said to them: No. Rava said, reinforcing his words with an oath: By God! He did in fact say this, and I learned it from him, but he later retracted this ruling. And what is the reason he retracted it? Due to the well-known principle that Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning [nimmuko] is with him, and the halakha follows his opinion even against the majority view.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: הִילְכְתָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק חֲזִי מַאי עַמָּא דָבַר.
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: What is the accepted halakha with regard to the width of a side post? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing; it is common practice to rely on a side post of minimal width.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא: הַשּׁוֹתֶה מַיִם לִצְמָאוֹ, אוֹמֵר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיָה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״בּוֹרֵא נְפָשׁוֹת רַבּוֹת וְחֶסְרוֹנָן עַל כָּל מַה שֶּׁבָּרָאתָ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: הִלְכְתָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק חֲזִי מַאי עַמָּא דָבַר.
The Gemara notes that there are those who taught that this answer was given with regard to this discussion: One who drinks water to quench his thirst recites the following blessing prior to drinking: By Whose word all things came to be. Rabbi Tarfon disagrees and says he recites the blessing: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs, for all that You have created. Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: What is the halakha? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing; the customary practice is to say: By Whose word all things came to be.
